96 kHz

Recording in 96 kHz

Since I invested in a turntable and a good HiFi amplifier back in 2008 I constantly compare the audio quality of records from the peak of the analog era back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before the world, and back then also myself, started worshipping the 'digital world' as being superior to vinyl and tape recordings. Long story short, to this day I hardly find a CD that I can listen to, not because the music on it was bad, but because to my ears, the 44.1 kHz sampling compromise that the industry chose back in the early 80s, is by far not enough to satisfy our ears, nor can it compete with the detailed top end and spatial impression of a good analog recording. I'd invite everybody to take a listen and it doesnt take 'golden ears' to hear and perceive the difference.In the meantime, I am not alone with this statement anymore. The wide range of voices calling for an improvement in digital audio quality ranges from 'Daftpunk' with their excellent vinyl recording "Random Access Memories' over Neil Young with his Pono player to industry legends like Rupert Neve:Here's what Rupert Neve has to say about the limitations of recording in 44.1 or even 48 kHz:(go to 28.20 min)

Dave Pensado: "Would it be safe to say that your problem with digital is not digital, it's the lack of top end response that you have a problem with digital with, and the concept of stringing 48000 pieces of information in a second together, that's the problem you have with digital?" Rupert Neve:"That's pretty much it, yes." "The higher the sampling rate, the better the quality". "Untli you get way beyond the 196 (kHz), which is pretty good, you havent competely eliminated that carving up of the audio signal, and I think, we can hear it, we can perceive it, ...there is something inside the brain, that the perception is responding to, saying 'this isnt quite it, yet'.